[srehm1]

Originally Posted by spiderarms

With regards to Probert-Semenko, its a NO SPIN zone here. Just mentioned there was an additional fight and yes Semenko was pounding on him, that is a fact. You are correct, it was a jump job but that's what Semenko was all about. I could list many other incidents but I know you know him as well as I do!

I wouldn't argue the Nilan fight or the Clark fight with you, its just a matter of conjecture. I mentioned Nilan because you brought up avenging all fights and YES YOU ARE CORRECT, I should have read your post better even though it was in the wee hours of the morning, you said avenging in the first 9 seasons.

I also hear you on the freezing thing. It has happened to me several times and its frustrating, especially when you want to word things the same way and your writing a war and peace novel.

With regards to Bob Probert, as I've said MANY times, he is one of my all-time favorites. I would never down play his prime. This debate is about two very EXCEPTIONAL fighters. Bob Probert's prime is LEGENDARY. He will always be looked at by me in this light, I regret having to knit pick to make my points against a favorite over a fighter that I don't like. But I guess that's life and I think it important to tell it like it is.

So that being said, LET'S MAKE A DEAL.

I'll forget Bob Probert's last 7 years in the NHL and you forget Behn Wilson's ROOKIE season when he lost to John Wensink and Nick Fotiu.

Sound Good?

Unfortunately that's not the reality of the situation. It didn't happen that way and everything is accountable when you drop the gloves.

But wouldn't it be fair to say judging a ROOKIE's first season is a tough way to go vs a guy who was 30 years old when his career started to decline a bit?

30 years old could be argued to be PRIME, couldn't it? That's how old he was in Chicago. That is when he suffered some big loses not just at the end of his career.

How about the fact that Behn Wilson, right out of the OHL comes in and gives John Wensink and Nick Fotiu all they can handle. That should tell you how really great a fighter he is.

By the way, in Probert's rookie year, he lost 5 fights. He was TKO'd by Ewen, lost twice to Craig Berube, lost to Wendel Clark and lost badly to Curt Fraser.

I do agree with you fair or not, Probert was put up on a huge pedestal and was expected to be invinceable. When you say everyone has him at number one all-time, how many of these posters have watched ALL of his videos? How many have watched ALL of Behn Wilson's? I know you, B25 and I have. But how many posters just watch the ones that are hyped and entertaining or just the ones that others refer them too?

I brought up the common opponents to show Wilson's adaptability to the same competition that Probert had in a different ERA. That's because you keep on stressing a better card for Probert.

Now I'm going to ask you a few of questions:

Do you think Behn Wilson would have been TKO'd by Dave Morrisette?
Do you think Behn Wilson would have been TKO'd by Chris Tamer?
Do you think Behn Wilson would have been TKO'd by Todd Ewen?

My answer to that is NO. Wilson was known for his chin and defense.

In a Ten fight series, Wilson wins. He is my Number#1 All-Time Fighter.

You can tell a fighters prime by watching the fights. Sometimes they start off slow like grimson or ray and sometimes they're great right off the bat like mccarthy or laraque. Age doesn't factor in as far as being a prime fighter goes. we can argue about the average age of fighters in their primes but it's the fights that count and how well they perform that tell me if a fighters is in his prime. Probert was in his prime from about 87-94 or so. He missed a whole year in 94-95 then came back in 95-96 and you could just tell that he was slowing down and not the same fighter.

It's funny but when people compare fighters from today and yesterday-probert always seems to be the measuring stick. It isn't behn wilson. it isn't gillies or fotiu. interesting.

I also remember you a few years back saying probert was your #1 all-time fighter, not wilson. what has changed spider?

I'm not sure what you mean by probert losing 5 fights as a rookie? I don't recall him losing any fights that year.

This idea that wilson wouldn't get knocked out by so and so is just speculation on your part. He may have had he played more than 9 years and had more than 98 fights in an era of player -first types. just speculation.

I have seen some very knowledgable people on this site make cases for probert being #1 all-time. these are people who have SEEN the fights and watched the video. lets not try to insult their intelligence by making some claim that they haven't seen all the fights and only watch the probert wins. i think this is a very telling statement by you. I have great respect for the knowledge of the people in this forum and would never make a generalization like that. i could easily say all those who have wilson at #1 probably stopped watching fights in 1988 and have never updated their all time lists and judge probie off what he did as a grizzled veteran in his 14th 15th or 16th season. I would never do that becacuse i respect the posters who come on this forum and drop gold on an almost daily basis. I see some of your fight calls on probie fights and I wonder if you have actually seen them. semenko gave probert a beating? did you watch the fight spider? nilan beat probert? on dyg maybe. lost 5 fights in his rookie year? never happened. he lost to fraser, berube, ewen-in his second year. i think some of those guys who have probie ahead of wilson all-time that haven't seen all the fights would have known that too.